Stripped Down: Ethical and Feminist Approaches to Archival Research
This post was written by Emily Kelly, a recipient of an Archival Scholar Research Award for the 2021 Spring Semester.
In the early phases of archival research, questions often center around the subject of the media. Who is being documented, why are they in the archive, who was left out of the archive, did the subject consent to being here? This is especially true in the delicate research of erotic art and alternative press such as On Our Backs, a lesbian erotica magazine that ran during the height of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
There have been attempts to digitize the entire run, met with resistance related to the ethical concerns of digitizing nude bodies that only consented to their viewing in the print magazine. Tara Robertson wrote about the ethics of viewing images that were created for print being placed online. In a discussion with a model from On Our Backs, it was revealed that towards the end of the run, models were even promised their images wouldn’t be placed in online publications while signing copyrights for fear that their bodies would be, “Cut up and [made into] a collage.” (Robertson) In the article, the focus is very clearly centered on the subjects of the magazines being a minoritized group that could experience harm from the publication’s digitization.
On another note, the founder of the periodical, Debbi Sundahl (pictured below), wrote in her 1994 editorial “Battle Scars” about the empowerment that she and other women felt in their portrayals of sex and intimacy. She wrote about how the magazine refused to comply with expectations in production as well as readership, how the AIDS pandemic shaped the publication by the way of including safe sex practices, and how the heart of the magazine was always the team of women behind it. It was a place that was free of the patronizing male gaze that allowed for open exploration of sexuality among queer individuals.
(Above) Image of Debbie Sundhal from “Battle Scars,” On Our Backs, 1994. Photographed by Robert Pruzan ca. 1984.
This safety that comes within the magazine creates a cause for concern when digitizing the run. A digital archive would create a great deal of access to the content and broaden the audience that the magazine could meet, yes, but it would also open the women and individuals within the magazine to the public eye. While anyone could have gone and bought the magazine when it still lived on the shelves, there was a sense of community found within those who sought it out. With that community came an ethics of care, even while presenting criticisms.
The question of consent is of the utmost importance when digitizing any archival material, but it is especially important to realize that the reason archivists may abstain from creating a digital run of On Our Backs is not rooted in the continued censorship of female and queer bodies. Even more so when publishing ideas relating to this media to social media platforms such as Tumblr, which took an aggressive stance against “female-presenting nipples”, queer content, and content that relates to sex. (Community Guidelines) Any concerns that may arise from digitizing these publications are not founded upon censorship of sex, but upon concern and care for the bodies within them. The role of an archivist, and anyone who participates in the archive, is not one of judgment and decision making, but one of stewardship for the subjects within.
(Above) Cover, On Our Backs, Winter 1986
On Our Backs. San Francisco, CA: On Our Backs, 1984-2006. Print.
Sundahl, Debbi. “Battle Scars,” On Our Backs. San Francisco, CA : On Our Backs, 1994.
Robertson, Tara. “Update on On Our Backs and Reveal Digital.” Tara Robertson Consulting, August 27, 2016. https://tararobertson.ca/2016/oob-update/.
“Community Guidelines.” Tumblr. Accessed 6 March 2021. https://www.tumblr.com/policy/en/community
